News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[WhoWee]

Hm... why am I not surprised that somebody working in the insurance industry doesn't want the insurance industry to be regulated?

Good point. However, from this perspective PPACA is my personal nightmare. Label this IMO - the compliance related legal/accounting/consulting for my current venture (a start up with several other firms) has cost more than my house. Regulations and mandates are not free and they absolutely add to consumer prices (eventually).

 

[ThomasT]

Entitlement aid is not included in 'discretionary' spending, unfortunately.

Sorry. So, this is a moot point as far as Romney is concerned? That is, he wouldn't reduce entitlement spending?

Helping people with money is not the same thing as growing the economy, i.e. increasing productivity, building business and creating new jobs.

I agree. But none of these is aimed at growing the economy:

53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP

And my point was that 53, 55, and 56 might reasonably be expected to reduce aggregate demand, and thus hurt the general economy. Speculating on the affect of 57 seems less clear to me.

The most reasonable approaches to improving things, imo, involve increasing regulatory capabilities (thus increasing stability and preventing massive financial debacles), and increasing revenue. Romney's plan seems to involve decreasing regulatory capabilities, and decreasing revenue.

The logical extension of your argument is that the government should be the entire economy, raising or lowering itself at will.

What do you mean by "the government should be the entire economy".

Anyway, I'm just making an assumption that reducing current fed aid levels would negatively affect the general economy. So, suppose that's done and that's what happens. Then what? Is the next logical step to increase the aid level back to at least what it was before the reduction, or for the government to take over ownership of everything?

 

[WhoWee]

If your objection is that it's so big, the problem with that is that if there are only a few words, then it would rely on court interpretation if there are any "gray areas". Sure it's long. Have you ever read any of the Code of Federal Regulations? 49 CFR (Department of Transportation) is a nightmare! However, I see it as useful since there is no wiggle room - the requirements are explicitly spelled out for shipping just about every hazardous material. I'd expect regulations spelling out the financial world to be long (though not as long as 49 CFR).

Now, if it is a nightmare as you claim, and raises costs, then how is it a nightmare, and how does it raise costs (I ask not because I don't believe but because I haven't read it, so don't know)?

Romney has a great deal of experience dealing with financial regulations - isn't it possible he might be able to streamline the process of regulation?

Here is an interesting discussion of Dodd-Frank - please note the timeline (through 2015) for implementation and the ongoing uncertainty of the program (sounds a bit like PPACA).

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2574

"'A Major Transformation': The Pros and Cons of the Dodd-Frank Act
Published: January 11, 2011 in Knowledge@Wharton "

 

[CAC1001]

Hm... why am I not surprised that somebody working in the insurance industry doesn't want the insurance industry to be regulated?

Not all industries dislike regulation; quite a few, or at least the big companies within them, like regulations, as it let's them knock out of business their smaller competitors.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry. So, this is a moot point as far as Romney is concerned? That is, he wouldn't reduce entitlement spending?

Yes he would, though those 4-5 points don't cover that. Any half responsible President has to reduce at least the rate of increase in Medicare spending, or it will collapse. The trick will be in doing so in manner that controls cost while actual medical benefit maintains or improves. To my mind there's only one method invented, so far, that accomplishes this goal: competition in the free market, i.e. price signaling, transparent reporting on medical quality, etc.

I agree. But none of these is aimed at growing the economy:

I think they are by reducing the deficit. I argued elsewhere that that a huge deficit on top a huge debt drags on the economy: absent a big cut in spending, people rationally anticipate the future holds large tax increases and restrain consumption accordingly.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes he would, though those 4-5 points don't cover that.

I was thinking about the food and housing stuff more so than the medical.

Any half responsible President has to reduce at least the rate of increase in Medicare spending, or it will collapse.

Agreed.

The trick will be in doing so in manner that controls cost while actual medical benefit maintains or improves.

The $64K conumdrum.

To my mind there's only one method invented, so far, that accomplishes this goal: competition in the free market, i.e. price signaling, transparent reporting on medical quality, etc.

It seems to me that if the healthcare industry was totally free market, with, say, nothing like medicare and medicaid, then a lot more people would be without adequate health care than are now. So, I guess I don't know what you're getting at. Healthcare costs are, afaik, across the board, inordinately inflated. The government is paying a lot of these costs. So, why can't the government simply say that "this" is what will be paid for this service or item, and no more?

I think they are by reducing the deficit. I argued elsewhere that that a huge deficit on top a huge debt drags on the economy: absent a big cut in spending, people rationally anticipate the future holds large tax increases and restrain consumption accordingly.

I don't know about this reasoning. I really don't think that the national debt or the deficit has anything to do with how people spend their money.

As far as I can tell, the average person's buying power is being continually eroded. That is, prices go up, little by little, but wages and salaries don't keep up with that trend. So, there is, continually, less aggregate demand for consumer products. I don't see how reducing the national debt or deficit helps this. But I do see how taking money out of the general economy via reductions in welfare programs might contribute to the problem.

 

[mheslep]

It seems to me that if the healthcare industry was totally free market, with, say, nothing like medicare and medicaid, then a lot more people would be without adequate health care than are now. So, I guess I don't know what you're getting at. Healthcare costs are, afaik, across the board, inordinately inflated. The government is paying a lot of these costs. So, why can't the government simply say that "this" is what will be paid for this service or item, and no more?

There could still be a competitive free market, unwarped by the government, by giving money directly to the people in need, via a health voucher or similar mechanism, and let them decide how to spend it. No tax games via the current employer tax deduction or government payments to providers. Then we get a reduction in cost from a competitive system which helps everyone, and which further aids the plight of those least equipped to afford healthcare.

 

[turbo]

As far as I can tell, the average person's buying power is being continually eroded. That is, prices go up, little by little, but wages and salaries don't keep up with that trend. So, there is, continually, less aggregate demand for consumer products. I don't see how reducing the national debt or deficit helps this. But I do see how taking money out of the general economy via reductions in welfare programs might contribute to the problem.

This is something that never gets headlines, but is a major force in the erosion of our economy. People of modest means spend all of their money, and they tend to spend it locally. Erode their buying power, and you erode the economies in their neighborhoods. If Mitt doesn't care much about the poor, then he doesn't understand local/regional economies, and can't be trusted with the Presidency. I don't want a President that is overly concerned with the health of Wall Street (we already have one!) but there has to be some shift of focus to the poor and the middle-class who are seeing their incomes eroded and their options limited.

I'm about to turn 60 in another month. I would never have envisioned years ago that the US would be studded with full homeless shelters, warming sites, and food-programs where homeless people might get a sandwich and a hot drink. It's so sad.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me that if the healthcare industry was totally free market, with, say, nothing like medicare and medicaid, then a lot more people would be without adequate health care than are now. So, I guess I don't know what you're getting at. Healthcare costs are, afaik, across the board, inordinately inflated. The government is paying a lot of these costs. So, why can't the government simply say that "this" is what will be paid for this service or item, and no more?

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid do set the standards.
http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/

 

[ThomasT]

There could still be a competitive free market, unwarped by the government, by giving money directly to the people in need, via a health voucher or similar mechanism, and let them decide how to spend it.

The voucher thing is an interesting idea, but I think they would have to be vouchers that could only be spent on healthcare services. Is that what you meant?

No tax games via the current employer tax deduction or government payments to providers. Then we get a reduction in cost from a competitive system which helps everyone, and which further aids the plight of those least equipped to afford healthcare.

I don't see how this would reduce costs.

 

[ThomasT]

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid do set the standards.
http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/

I haven't read this yet. But, apparently, they haven't set the prices low enough. For example, the cost of getting a two block ride in an ambulance to a local hospital, and a cursory exam in an emergency room, would, in most metropolitan areas, be around $1000. For something that, imho, should cost around, say, $50.

 

[WhoWee]

Mitt Romney talks a good bit about the Medicaid system - as a former Governor he knows a great deal about how the system works. The following graph demonstrates the expansion of Medicaid spending over the past few years. You can also view your state.

http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-State/By-State.html

 

[mheslep]

The voucher thing is an interesting idea, but I think they would have to be vouchers that could only be spent on healthcare services. Is that what you meant?

Yes.

 

[WhoWee]

I haven't read this yet. But, apparently, they haven't set the prices low enough. For example, the cost of getting a two block ride in an ambulance to a local hospital, and a cursory exam in an emergency room, would, in most metropolitan areas, be around $1000. For something that, imho, should cost around, say, $50.

Most insurance carriers would agree with your assessment.

 

[ThomasT]

This is something that never gets headlines, but is a major force in the erosion of our economy. People of modest means spend all of their money, and they tend to spend it locally. Erode their buying power, and you erode the economies in their neighborhoods. If Mitt doesn't care much about the poor, then he doesn't understand local/regional economies, and can't be trusted with the Presidency.

Agreed. And this is my current assessment of Romney (as well as all the other GOP candidates and the current president). But I will say that I think he could be trusted to be the usual sort of president. Which, for me, while not catastrophic, isn't very inspiring.

I don't want a President that is overly concerned with the health of Wall Street (we already have one!) but there has to be some shift of focus to the poor and the middle-class who are seeing their incomes eroded and their options limited.

I agree. I would like to see the nationalization of the financial sector (a great source of income for the government), and an increase in the minimum wage to, say, something more than $12/hour. I think this would be a boon to the general economy as well as improve the lives of millions of working Americans.

I'm about to turn 60 in another month. I would never have envisioned years ago that the US would be studded with full homeless shelters, warming sites, and food-programs where homeless people might get a sandwich and a hot drink. It's so sad.

Well, I'm 64, and things do seem to be a bit worse now than they were, say, 40 years ago. But that's just my subjective take on things from my very limited experience.

 

[ThomasT]

Most insurance carriers would agree with your assessment.

So why doesn't the government, a principle payer, just lower what it will pay for services and items?

 

[ThomasT]

Mitt Romney talks a good bit about the Medicaid system - as a former Governor he knows a great deal about how the system works. The following graph demonstrates the expansion of Medicaid spending over the past few years. You can also view your state.

http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-State/By-State.html

Thanks for the info. I'm sure that Romney knows a great deal about how the system works. So, why not just significantly lower what the government is willing to pay for services and hardware? As far as I can tell, wrt medicare and medicaid, it's a buyers market.

 

[russ_watters]

So why doesn't the government, a principle payer, just lower what it will pay for services and items?

Do you mean dictating the price? I suspect if an ambulance company is only allowed to get paid $50 per ride, most will just quit the business. Or should the government also force people to work the jobs and force the pay rates too?

 

[ThomasT]

Do you mean dictating the price? I suspect if an ambulance company is only allowed to get paid $50 per ride, most will just quit the business. Or should the government also force people to work the jobs and force the pay rates too?

Are you saying that they can't make a profit charging $50 for a two-minute ride and a five-minute examination?

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying that they can't make a profit charging $50 for a two-minute ride and a five-minute examination?

You think the average ambulance pickup takes 7 minutes and that's all you're paying for?

 

[ThomasT]

Do you mean dictating the price? I suspect if an ambulance company is only allowed to get paid $50 per ride, most will just quit the business. Or should the government also force people to work the jobs and force the pay rates too?

I think that the government, as far as it is paying, can force the pay rates to be lower, ie., more reasonable, less inordinately inflated.

 

[ThomasT]

You think the average ambulance pickup takes 7 minutes and that's all you're paying for?

Of course not. But I think they should charge commensurate with what's actually done. And that the government, insofar as it's paying those charges, shouldn't be paying $1000 for something that obviously isn't worth that. The costs of healthcare services and items is ... unreasonable. Isn't there something that the government, insofar as it's paying for those, can do about that?

 

[russ_watters]

...and an increase in the minimum wage to, say, something more than $12/hour. I think this would be a boon to the general economy as well as improve the lives of millions of working Americans.

How would we deal with the millions of Americans it put out of work by making it too expensive to employ them?

 

[ThomasT]

Do you mean dictating the price?

Basically, yes.

 

[ThomasT]

How would we deal with the millions of Americans it put out of work by making it too expensive to employ them?

I don't think that would happen. Who are the largest employers of minimum wage workers? Not small businesses. If, say, Walmart was forced to pay it's workers a minimum of, say, $12/hour do you think that would put Walmart out of business? I don't think so. But it might decrease their bottom line by a billion dollars or so.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course not. But I think they should charge commensurate with what's actually done. And that the government, insofar as it's paying those charges, shouldn't be paying $1000 for something that obviously isn't worth that.

I think if you really put some thought into what that was paying for, it would start to look a lot more reasonable. But that's really the secondary point to me: the primary point being that that's a pretty heavy-handed/extreme level of government control. A big part of the reason Republicans are against government-run healthcare is we are pro freedom, including economic freedom.

 

[ThomasT]

Then again, where do most Walmart workers spend lots of their money. At Walmart and places like that? I think so. So, maybe Walmart's bottom line wouldn't decrease in proportion to the increase in wages it pays.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think that would happen. Who are the largest employers of minimum wage workers? Not small businesses. If, say, Walmart was forced to pay it's workers a minimum of, say, $12/hour do you think that would put Walmart out of business? I don't think so. But it might decrease their bottom line by a billion dollars or so.

I didn't say it would put anyone out of business (it would a few, but that's not the biggest impact), I said it would put people out of work. Walmart would just fire a portion of its employees.

 

[ThomasT]

I think if you really put some thought into what that was paying for, it would start to look a lot more reasonable.

I don't think that a specific service or item should cost more than that specific service or item. If a hospital can't stay in business charging reasonable rates, then, imo, it should be nationalized.

But that's really the secondary point to me: the primary point being that that's a pretty heavy-handed/extreme level of government control. A big part of the reason Republicans are against government-run healthcare is we are pro freedom, including economic freedom.

Economic freedom for the masses means reasonable, not arbitrarily inflated, prices for goods and services, and a livable minimum wage. This is the conundrum. The society can't be free, in the same sense, for the rich and for the masses at the same time. So, we have to make a choice. Do we advocate maximization of freedom for the rich, or maximization of freedom for the masses?

 

[ThomasT]

I didn't say it would put anyone out of business (it would a few, but that's not the biggest impact), I said it would put people out of work. Walmart would just fire a portion of its employees.

I disagree. Anyway, it's a question that can be answered by raising the minimum wage to, say, $12/hour and see what happens to the economy. My prediction is that it would have a positive effect on the general economy.